• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

FEATURED AMD RX 480 Review list

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Well, seems like a decent card for the price. At least until NVidia launches the 1060.
A good thing for AMD: I am sure they will noticeably increase their market shares in the mid-range segment if NVidia takes too long to react.

And it gives good hope for Vega!

Between that and Zen, 2017 might be a good year for the red team!

Only downside is the OC potential, which doesn't seem great on the review I've checked:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2496-amd-rx-480-8gb-review-and-benchmark-vs-gtx-970-1070/page-6
 
Last edited:
Mostly disapointing, it's about equal to a GTX 970, and a little below the R9 390. So the rumors of performance between an R9 390X and a Fury and close to a GTX 980 were the usual lies. Power efficiency not as great as advertised, just a little better than the GTX 970. The TMSC 16nm FinFET Nvidia is using is much more power efficient than the GF 14nm FinFET AMD is using. AMD has just caught up to Maxwell in power efficiency. The reference cooler is pathetic and some sites feel the power draw is too high for a single 6-pin connector.

Looks like I'll pass on it as an upgrade to my R9 380X and go with a GTX 1070.
 
Tír na nÓg said:
Well, seems like a decent card for the price. At least until NVidia launches the 1060.
A good thing for AMD: I am sure they will noticeably increase their market shares in the mid-range segment if NVidia takes too long to react.
Click to expand...

In the short term I think nvidia are ok with selling the 970 against it, at least the pricing is comparable where I am against the 970 and 480 8GB (haven't seen 4GB cards). Of course, the newer tech and more ram could help 480 looking forwards, but that doesn't seem to be helping much right now.

I am actually in the market for a new card at the moment, and nothing I've seen yet is persuading me this is the card to get. Still looking through various reviews which focus on traditional monitor gaming, but haven't seen anything about VR performance yet.
 
I'm interested in xfire potential. I think AMD is going to nail it down in that market, especially once games start utilizing DX12 with multi-gpu support (ie not using the xfire/sli but the dedicated DX12 multi-gpu support).
 
I think we should give a chance to AMD on this one...
It's a big step forward in perf/watt compared to the previous generations.

And I am with Dolk: the way AMD advertised Polaris is clearly xFire oriented, and DX12 is certainly a game changer in this matter.
 
No way I would buy two RX 480 8GB cards for $480 over a single GTX 1070 8GB for $400 (the price of a Gigabyte 1070 at Newegg). And RX 480s with custom coolers will cost more - you really don't want that reference cooler if you're thinking OC.
 
Why I would like to start seeing those benchmarks. Cost price comparison. If I did do 480x Xfire, it would be with water blocks so I could do proper cooling. From where it stands right now, the 480x looks like it could OC very well and out perform 1x 1070.
 
Encouraged - if one is at 1080P for $225~$250ish it looks really good.

Granted that Wattman doesn't always work right (AMD software support bites once again).

Some games it kicks some serious numbers out - Far Cry Primal: 1440p 55 fps, 1080p 82 fps. DX12 is impressive as well however with only one game to benchmark with it isn't mindblowing.

Power and heat look fine. It is hot (80C at max benchmark?) - for AMD that is a lot better than the 290/290X numbers. Power (250ish watts) is almost identical to the Nvidia 970.

Intangibles that some may love other may not - SteamVR, HDR support for better colors, 5K support.

Overclocking is a mixed bag - for $250 I really didn't expect it to do well. (Maybe AMD will tweak the drivers.) I know that is wishing on a star.

Last little thought - if Polaris is good at $250 price point, does that mean that Vega will be great? I remember someone writing somewhere that Vega may have it's release moved up to October?
 
Last edited:
DaveB said:
Mostly disapointing, it's about equal to a GTX 970, and a little below the R9 390. So the rumors of performance between an R9 390X and a Fury and close to a GTX 980 were the usual lies. Power efficiency not as great as advertised, just a little better than the GTX 970. The TMSC 16nm FinFET Nvidia is using is much more power efficient than the GF 14nm FinFET AMD is using. AMD has just caught up to Maxwell in power efficiency. The reference cooler is pathetic and some sites feel the power draw is too high for a single 6-pin connector.

Looks like I'll pass on it as an upgrade to my R9 380X and go with a GTX 1070.
Click to expand...


DaveB said:
No way I would buy two RX 480 8GB cards for $480 over a single GTX 1070 8GB for $400 (the price of a Gigabyte 1070 at Newegg). And RX 480s with custom coolers will cost more - you really don't want that reference cooler if you're thinking OC.
Click to expand...

I agree on both quotes here. As always AMD has only teased us once again with just nibbles :mad: I'll have to either stick with my current 390 or go with a 1070/1080 for an upgrade.
 
Dolk said:
Why I would like to start seeing those benchmarks. Cost price comparison. If I did do 480x Xfire, it would be with water blocks so I could do proper cooling. From where it stands right now, the 480x looks like it could OC very well and out perform 1x 1070.
Click to expand...
it could? It has a looong way to go to get there as a 1070 is at least as fast as a 980ti. Then you can overclock the 1070 too... uphill battle at best.


Power and heat look fine. It is hot (80F at max benchmark?) - for AMD that is a lot better than the 290/290X numbers. Power (250ish watts) is almost identical to the Nvidia 970.
Click to expand...
you mean Celsius?

Also, the 970 is a 150W card. ;)




If anyone gets more links, post them up and i will add it to the first post. As far as us getting them, we will work with amd partners and should have some in the coming weeks. :)
 
Last edited:
dudleycpa said:
Last little thought - if Polaris is good at $250 price point, does that mean that Vega will be great? I remember someone writing somewhere that Vega may have it's release moved up to October?
Click to expand...
Dunno, but Nvidia will respond with the HBM2 equipped 1080Ti so still no clear winner for AMD would be expected. But, we'll just have to wait and see.

Dolk said:
Why I would like to start seeing those benchmarks. Cost price comparison. If I did do 480x Xfire, it would be with water blocks so I could do proper cooling. From where it stands right now, the 480x looks like it could OC very well and out perform 1x 1070.
Click to expand...
Now you're adding another $100 or so per card. I don't see why you would want to spend close to $300 more for two water-cooled RX 480s in the hope of slightly exceeding the performance of a single GTX 1070. But it is your money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@DaveB

OC Performance/$ of 2x 480x w/ & w/o WC blocks vs 1x 1070 I think is a very real scenario. People entering into this generation with R9 200s or Nvidia 970 or lower could go with a progressive build if they do not have the cash up front. I'm looking at this with the set mind of someone upgrading their system to be 1080p to 2k/1440p capable for some time. 4k or greater PC builders would need to follow a different route for buying the right GPU.
 
@Dolk, the problem is hoping for consistent performance increases from crossfire 480s, where AMD has certainly lacked. After having dual 580s, 7970s, 290xs, I'm never going with dual cards again because of the numerous driver problems. And poor game support. When it comes to dx12 developers still have to code for it to support multi-gpu, it isn't a simple check box. With the very small % of users that utilize a multi-gpu solution it would be hard to put that onus on the developers to spend thousands of dollars in man hours for less than 1% of the gaming population.
 
@EarthDog

"Also, the 970 is a 150W card." - just listing what I thought I had read. The reviewer/article said that power-wise it was around a GTX 970. I just looked at the article, it is Total System Power. (Sorry)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3089...possible-with-a-200-graphics-card.html?page=9

@Dolk - You hit the nail on the head. Great for 1080p, very good for 1440p and "doable" for 4K and greater.

Lots of way to slice this up - which is why we all enjoy reading and "playing".
 
Tom's Hardware reported that the RX 480 violates the PCI-E specifications by exceeding the max of 75W by drawing 90W from the slot. They didn't overclock because they claimed tha the RX 480’s power consumption through the PCIe slot jumped to an average of 100W, peaking at 200W. If this is proven to be true, and not the result of some faulty measurement through a riser card, this is a HUGE issue as it could fry the motherboard.
 
Janus67 said:
@Dolk, the problem is hoping for consistent performance increases from crossfire 480s, where AMD has certainly lacked. After having dual 580s, 7970s, 290xs, I'm never going with dual cards again because of the numerous driver problems. And poor game support. When it comes to dx12 developers still have to code for it to support multi-gpu, it isn't a simple check box. With the very small % of users that utilize a multi-gpu solution it would be hard to put that onus on the developers to spend thousands of dollars in man hours for less than 1% of the gaming population.
Click to expand...
well said!

I do believe though that CFx has made some significant strides lately on the scaling side, particularly with fiji architecture.

dudleycpa said:
@Earthdog

"Also, the 970 is a 150W card." - just listing what I thought I had read. The reviewer/article said that power-wise it was around a GTX 970. I just looked at the article, it is Total System Power. (Sorry)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3089...possible-with-a-200-graphics-card.html?page=9

@Dolk - You hit the nail on the head. Great for 1080p, very good for 1440p and "doable" for 4K and greater.

Lots of way to slice this up - which is why we all enjoy reading and "playing".
Click to expand...
From what i have seen it is a great 1080p card, solid 1440 card, and leaves a lot to be desired for single card 4k. If it is as fast or slightly faster than a 970, below a 980, its not 4k ready. When i say 4k ready, i mean ~45-60 fps, ultra settings, no AA to 4xAA range.
 
Kind of disappointing on the OC. I was thinking of getting one of these or a used GTX970 for 1080 gaming. The 480 is slightly faster but the 970 overclocks a lot better and might end up being faster once both are OCed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EarthDog
AMD 7000 Series X3D Reviews
Replies
19
Views
2K
Woomack
W
Overclockers.com
FRONTPAGE AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT and RX 6800 Review: Competing at the Top Again
Replies
14
Views
1K
Johan45
Johan45
Joe88
AMD Radeon Adrenalin 2020 Edition 20.8.1 Release
Replies
0
Views
591
Joe88
Joe88
Joe88
AMD Radeon Adrenalin 2020 Edition 20.8.2 Release
Replies
1
Views
518
EarthDog
EarthDog
Overclockers.com
FRONTPAGE AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT Review: Ultimate 1080p Gaming
Replies
5
Views
1K
Vishera
Vishera
Back